Feminist Inroads Into Mormonism

[why me]

Most of all. I am puzzled by your perception that men are bashed "all day". There has been a reaction to the very real issues the feminists are pointing out which has resulted in various ways of telling women they are special. But that in turn has consequences because it carries the unintended message that men aren't. The solution is to give women more responsibility in church leadership so that their input is visible. But if women bashed men all day they would be bashing their male children. They just don't do that. I have never seen Mormon women less concerned about their boys than their girls. I do see joking or slights from all sides but that is not a Mormon thing at all.

Both men and women cannot separate themselves from the society that sprouts them. And definitely what we are seeing is a bashing of both sexes in the home as couples attempt to adjust to a liquid society where there is basically very little to hold onto. Again, this goes back to the objectification that is now found throughout our societies. People are no longer subjects but objects to be used and abused at will, especially in the workforce. And this translates into the home and to the children who are raised in the home.

What is bashing? I think that bashing can also be silent or argumentative. We see both ocurring as nerves become frayed and zinged from the pressures of the outside world.

[why me]

Also, what is feminism? There are many feminisms out there and feminists themselves find themselves disagreeing according to the feminism that one adheres to. We would need to look at the different forms of feminism and see just what they are advocating to make any sense of feminist inroads in mormonism.

Edited December 30, 2011 by why me

[The Nehor]

It's not that the eternal woman will be able to do nothing but give birth--but the birthing of spirit children is the only specifically defined role of celestial women in the Mormon afterlife. Women are assigned to the feminine role because they are important primarily for their eternal bodies, while men are assigned a masculine role because they are important primarily for their eternal minds and spirits.

Unless you're suggesting that women reproduce asexually in heaven the process of creating children is a shared one meaning that men would be just as important for their bodies. As for men being important primarily for their "minds and spirits" I would insist on a CFR. Some quote that establishes this as I have never heard of one.

I haven't seen any movement within church publications toward a more metaphorical interpretation of the "heavenly mother" role. As far as I am aware, there are publications that still say that heavenly parents are "literally" the parents of our spirits. The history of this view, incidentally, is very interesting. It originated with Brigham Young and his Adam-God doctrine. (Joseph Smith never taught this himself, and actually taught that spirits were never born, and could not be born.) But around 1916, after the church officially jettisoned Adam-God and adopted the modern theology we know today, the "giving birth to spirit babies" doctrine was one of the few elements of Adam-God that survived. I would prefer to just dump the "spirit babies" theory altogether, and return to something closer to what Smith was teaching: that spirits are co-eternal with God, and that God (and Goddess) gathered them together and organized them as a body of his (their) children.

If you're referring to Abraham then yes, whatever makes up spirits is not created.

Fortunately neither you or I are authorized to jettison doctrine we personally find difficult to understand or offensive. That way lies madness and the reasoning that perverted Christianity from a church of revelation to the church of "what we can figure out" coupled with some scripture.

[why me]

Feminism is exactly what should be expected to emerge in a free society where the men held all the power and often abused it for so long. The pendulum swings. The church has observed the dynamics for many years and we are (hopefully) emerging from a phase where women were somewhat babied. I think equilibrium is on the horizon. (at least for awhile) These are the types of things that result in positive change.

What is positive change? First what kind of feminism should we be advocating? Radical feminism, socialist feminism, marxist feminism, liberal feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, existentialist feminism, postmodern feminism? We need to clarify. As you can see there are many feminism to choose from. And depending on our choice, our society will possibly become or be influenced by.

Edited December 30, 2011 by why me

[juliann]

I haven't seen any movement within church publications toward a more metaphorical interpretation of the "heavenly mother" role. As far as I am aware, there are publications that still say that heavenly parents are "literally" the parents of our spirits. The history of this view, incidentally, is very interesting. It originated with Brigham Young and his Adam-God doctrine. (Joseph Smith never taught this himself, and actually taught that spirits were never born, and could not be born.) But around 1916, after the church officially jettisoned Adam-God and adopted the modern theology we know today, the "giving birth to spirit babies" doctrine was one of the few elements of Adam-God that survived. I would prefer to just dump the "spirit babies" theory altogether, and return to something closer to what Smith was teaching: that spirits are co-eternal with God, and that God (and Goddess) gathered them together and organized them as a body of his (their) children.

I'd be interested in any ongoing teaching...as in the Ensign or conference talks....that say women will have a mortal birthing process for eternity. (That was used to justify polygamy so the man could have faster eternal increase and had no use once that practice was discontinued.) We are insistent that parentage is literal but the God had sex with Mary version has dropped by the wayside. Now it is emphasized that Mary is a virgin. If mortal insemination is not necessary for creation, I think it is safe to say we are indeed moving away from 19th c thought on this.

We can find all sorts of things in institutionalized writings that tend to stay around. It is what happens in real time that indicates which way the wind in blowing. Because we do have the co-eternal intelligence/spirit theory we really are not tied to one school of thought on this. I could use JS in a church lesson, for example, and not get any blowback. I do think that when any woman thinks of the implications of nonstop physical birthing for eternity, they would find it laughable. They would not find creating spirit bodies laughable whatever that may entail. So I think we take liberties when we try to fill in the blanks when it comes to creation. .

Also, I think the very titles Heavenly Father and Mother imply that eternity will involve fathering and mothering rather than mere insemination and gestation.

[juliann]

I am not sure that I agree with you here. There are many women who are leaving the workforce to become mothers or to attend school because they are finding work to be demeaning or stressful. Of course they must be able to afford to leave the workforce. Work is certainly not fun these days. There is a lot of pressure to create a profit and one must prove their worth on a regular basis. Not to mention the constant evaluations a worker must suffer from. And the possibility of losing ones job regardless if you were a great worker or not.

To be with a child can be very rewarding once a person no longer focuses on the importantance of work for self worth. For many, work no longer has visible rewards.

It doesn't matter how many are entering or leaving the work force at any given time. There are still stats showing how many women work outside the home and it is now a majority. Any duty has its good and bad points so that isn't really relevant to what rewards it does have..... a paycheck being the biggest. In our society the first question you will be asked is "what do you do" when that actually should be considered rude. We evaluate people by their jobs. Child bearing has no status, really. Child care is one of the lowest status and paying jobs. So it isn't surprising that women are being told they are special as they leave the home in droves.

Do we really have to pit men against women? Isn't that playing into the problem? There seems to be a perception that if one sex gets something it will be at the expense of the other.

[juliann]

What is positive change? First what kind of feminism should we be advocating? Radical feminism, socialist feminism, marxist feminism, liberal feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, existentialist feminism, postmodern feminism? We need to clarify. As you can see there are many feminism to choose from. And depending on our choice, our society will possibly become or be influenced by.

Those are political and usually inflammatory labels. No, it is not necessary to clarify. I don't find the term feminism to be useful at all. The church does tend to follow society as it establishes equal rights and there will be increased pressure to relax patriarchal restrictions.... from within and especially from without as we are more scrutinized.

[blooit]

Sure. Japan, China, Telefomin, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, many South American cultures, Islamic cultures (you must know that the balance of power is extremely uneven there...) Do I need to go on?

Blooit: are you really an anthropologist? I ask this because I am currently an anthropology student, and I'm kind of stunned that you would even make such an observation. Feminism is exactly what should be expected to emerge in a free society where the men held all the power and often abused it for so long. The pendulum swings. The church has observed the dynamics for many years and we are (hopefully) emerging from a phase where women were somewhat babied. I think equilibrium is on the horizon. (at least for awhile) These are the types of things that result in positive change.

I do not have a doctorate in anthropology, but I have a BA and MA in anthro. I work in education now and am working on my doctorate in education. I haven't completed an anthro study in 6 years, so that may lessen my credibility

To me, the cultural pendulum can be very dangerous. I do not think we are headed for improvement, I believe we are headed for more trouble when both genders abuse each other and marriage becomes largely a thing of the past. Fascism, for example, was a natural reaction to the economic hardships of the world wide depression. That doesn't make it OK. The devaluation of either gender is wrong, and cannot be justified based on past errors or it becomes little more than revenge.

[why me]

Those are political and usually inflammatory labels.

They are actually academic labels that one can find in almost all university gender studies classes as students are expected to study the various forms of feminisms that exist. It is important for students to know the difference and to interpret the feminism that comes closes to their own belief system. It has nothing to do with inflammatory or the political. It has to do with academic feminist thought and theory.

[why me]

Do we really have to pit men against women? Isn't that playing into the problem? There seems to be a perception that if one sex gets something it will be at the expense of the other.

If we live in competitive societies, then men and women will be expected to compete with each other either in the home or in the workforce. Thus, we can live in a society that pits men against women or women against men. This suits a competitive system quite well. However, there are feminisms that take a different perspective than competition and attempt to show that both men and women are victims of a competitive society within a class structure.

Edited December 30, 2011 by why me

[why me]

We evaluate people by their jobs. Child bearing has no status, really. Child care is one of the lowest status and paying jobs. So it isn't surprising that women are being told they are special as they leave the home in droves.

And this has to do with the dominant ideology that we live in: an ideology that equates one's monetary value according to work. Child care is one of the lowest because it is not valued by a work related competitive society. We are told that our true value is relation to the position that we hold in the labor market. The home plays no role in such a system. So, it becomes devalued. Now of course, the solution would be to foster an environment where the home is valued and the child becomes societies most valuable resource, to be treated humanely.

Edited December 30, 2011 by why me

[katherine the great]

What is positive change? First what kind of feminism should we be advocating? Radical feminism, socialist feminism, marxist feminism, liberal feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, existentialist feminism, postmodern feminism? We need to clarify. As you can see there are many feminism to choose from. And depending on our choice, our society will possibly become or be influenced by.

I was addressing the comments about how the church has reacted to feminism (or more specifically, the women's rights movement.) I don't see a lot of radical feminism in my neck of the woods, although I did live in the SF Bay Area during the 70's and know a bit about what was going on there at the time. I think the "emotional pampering" of women that we currently see in the church is on it's way out and I fully agree with Julianne that a large part of the solution will be (or at least should be) an expansion of women's leadership roles and influence in the church. We should never be exempt from responsibility and accountability and we all should be appreciated equally-male and female alike.

[Cobalt-70]

Unless you're suggesting that women reproduce asexually in heaven the process of creating children is a shared one meaning that men would be just as important for their bodies. As for men being important primarily for their "minds and spirits" I would insist on a CFR. Some quote that establishes this as I have never heard of one.

No, just as with mortal men in Western culture, it is not the eternal man's body, as a passive and submissive object, that contributes to the birthing process. Rather, he in an active "sower of seeds" within the woman's passive "furrows." It is not his body, but his essence, which is transferred to the woman.

Fortunately neither you or I are authorized to jettison doctrine we personally find difficult to understand or offensive. That way lies madness and the reasoning that perverted Christianity from a church of revelation to the church of "what we can figure out" coupled with some scripture.

Since the "spirit babies" theory is not in the Mormon canon, any Mormon is free to jettison it, just as many Mormons jettisoned the now-obsolete Adam-God doctrine despite Brigham Young's protestations to the contrary. Moreover, what is in the Mormon canon is the idea that spirits are never created, and were co-eternal with God. (See D&C 93:23.)

[katherine the great]

I do not have a doctorate in anthropology,

Thank goodness. The anthro Ph.D's I work with are kind of full of themselves. You and I are kind of opposites I guess. My undergrad was in Education and now I'm doing grad work in anthro. It's all good!

[why me]

I think the "emotional pampering" of women that we currently see in the church is on it's way out and I fully agree with Julianne that a large part of the solution will be (or at least should be) an expansion of women's leadership roles and influence in the church. We should never be exempt from responsibility and accountability and we all should be appreciated equally-male and female alike.

I think so too. But as whether this is a positive or negative trend will be determined in the future. I also think that women need more responsibility in the church in leadership and influence. But we also need to remember the home and the leadership and responsibiltiy there. No home is served well by two adults who are tired from work and stress. And certainly, if a home is single parented, ithe home is not served well if that one parent is tired, nervous and on edge from life related stress and angst. How much responsibility and leadership can a couple give to a church and to a job without it affecting the home in a negative way?

[katherine the great]

I think so too. But as whether this is a positive or negative trend will be determined in the future. I also think that women need more responsibility in the church in leadership and influence. But we also need to remember the home and the leadership and responsibiltiy there. No home is served well by two adults who are tired from work and stress. And certainly, if a home is single parented, ithe home is not served well if that one parent is tired, nervous and on edge from life related stress and angst. How much responsibility and leadership can a couple give to a church and to a job without it affecting the home in a negative way?

I don't think young mothers or young fathers are probably the best choice for that type of responsibility. However, the church is full of women who's children are grown or mostly grown and they may be very good candidates for more leadership opportunities. I'd like to see more church sponsored education geared towards healthy marriages also. I think there are plenty of LDS psychologists/family therapists who could make a difference in whatever negative male/female dynamics that are currently being experienced by members. If it is really a significant problem, maybe it could be addressed in this way.

[katherine the great]

. So what duties are solely a wife's duties, and her shifting them to someone else would be neglecting her duties? I guess that is my question. (I think )

Carnal relations with her husband...

[CV75]

Japan, China, Telefomin, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, many South American cultures, Islamic cultures (you must know that the balance of power is extremely uneven there...) Do I need to go on?

Are you saying that these cultures do not give “men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others” and “ rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them”?

[CV75]

At least in the cities, machismo is still very dominant, and women are treated very poorly. The indian groups I've seen usually treat the women very well.

My point is that when it comes to acculturating males, most cultures give “men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others” and “ rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them.”

[rpn]

The Family Proclamation says it is the mothers role to nurture (which presumably includes teaching to work and how to keep a house and taking care of children's needs for food and other things) and father's role is to provide for. It doesn't say a single word about who does what to maintain the house, the schedule and the yard.

For men who feel they are not getting a fair shake, my first question would be, "Are you the one who sees that daily scripture study is scheduled and everyone is notified to appear, that FHE is held, and that the family is gathered for prayer morning and night and for meals? If you have assumed and discharge that priesthood duty (along with your HTing) with thoughtfulness, including your wife in decisions, and have exercised priesthood principles in the way you have family counsels and counsel with your spouse, and you still believe your spouse is not carrying her share (or that your load is too heavy even if she is), THEN and ONLY THEN, might you have some complaint. (And have you ruled out a medical issue/insufficient sleep for both of you caused by allowing your family to assume too many activities --- Elder's Uchtdorf's talk on better/best.)

It is my experience that women complain about men after they do not step up the way they are taught to do spiritually and in the home. I'm not suggesting that men bashing is okay in any way: it is not. And I'm not suggesting a dh's failings is an acceptable excuse to do things like expect them to come to snapped fingers ---- both of those suggest that the wife has assumed the role of mother instead of spouse. What I am suggesting is that failure to be the one that proposes the temple trip, or that comes home willing to give dw the 20 minutes downtime that you need after a long day of work, or that thinks it her job to put your bowl in the dishwasher and clean up your messes, contributes to the reasons for treating you with less respect that you as a son of God deserves.

And I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with feminism in Mormonism. I just think it has a lot to do with men not having learned to take care of themselves and live independently sufficiently so that they expect a dw and not a mother (not that all adults don't have days when they just want someone else to carry the load).

[Sine Saw Square]

What kind of expanded leadership and responsibility would you like to see women have in the Church?

[Sine Saw Square]

Do women in Relief Society have something equivalent to the "PPI"?

[rpn]

Oh, and I should have mentioned that there is a lot of selfishness going on in homes on both sides, which is a big reason why these things fester instead of being negotiated to a satisfactory division of labor.

[Cobalt-70]

I'd be interested in any ongoing teaching...as in the Ensign or conference talks....that say women will have a mortal birthing process for eternity. (That was used to justify polygamy so the man could have faster eternal increase and had no use once that practice was discontinued.) We are insistent that parentage is literal but the God had sex with Mary version has dropped by the wayside. Now it is emphasized that Mary is a virgin. If mortal insemination is not necessary for creation, I think it is safe to say we are indeed moving away from 19th c thought on this.

We can find all sorts of things in institutionalized writings that tend to stay around. It is what happens in real time that indicates which way the wind in blowing. Because we do have the co-eternal intelligence/spirit theory we really are not tied to one school of thought on this. I could use JS in a church lesson, for example, and not get any blowback. I do think that when any woman thinks of the implications of nonstop physical birthing for eternity, they would find it laughable. They would not find creating spirit bodies laughable whatever that may entail. So I think we take liberties when we try to fill in the blanks when it comes to creation. .

Also, I think the very titles Heavenly Father and Mother imply that eternity will involve fathering and mothering rather than mere insemination and gestation.

The shift from God's literal sex with Mary to a more metaphorical sexual union only increases the distinction between eternal assignment of men and women to masculine and feminine roles. The man can impregnate merely through the power of his dominant mind and will, while the passive woman is "overshadowed" by the will of the active male.

I agree that the theory of resurrected women literally giving birth to untold billions of spirit babies is rather unworkable. But merely converting literal eternal motherhood to metaphorical eternal motherhood is not, itself, necessarily a feminist solution, because the feminine elements of motherhood are still undervalued, while the masculine elements of fatherhood are still overvalued.

Perhaps what needs to occur is a masculinization of eternal motherhood, and a feminization of eternal fatherhood. That could occur even within the "spirit babies" model, because instead of being the passive "furrow" into which the male seed is "planted," the mother could actually be The Creator, which is an active role. Through seduction, she obtains the male seed, thus objectifying him. There is no theological reason why an eternal mother must be submissive to the eternal father, given that it was supposedly Eve's fault--on this earth--for causing God to curse women with a submissive and feminine role. There is no indication in Mormon theology that "Elohim" also cursed the heavenly Mother with a submissive role just because Eve was the first to take the forbidden fruit.

Another path is simply to reverse the favoritism given to masculinity over femininity within Mormon theology. For example, the feminine act of seduction becomes not just the disfavored tool of Satan, but the favored tool of the eternal feminine. In other words, rather than the Father convincing humanity, through his logical powers, to do good, the Mother seduces humanity toward a life of righteousness. Mormonism has already gone part-way in the direction of reversing the West's dim view of femininity, by favoring matter over spirit, and by favoring "spiritual" intuition over logic. But perhaps the project is incomplete.

[CV75]

The comment was sarcastic and disrespectful, but it is celebrated in our culture because it came from a sister.

I'd like to find and review this quote; I kind of remember it. Are you saying that part of the problem about Mormon culture, as you see it, is that LDS are encouraged to be sarcastic and disrespectful against men by the kinds of examples leadership uses?

The several examples you gave are awful ways to treat people and do not reflect a Zion culture in my opinion. I believe our leaders would agree.

However, if our leaders are using "tough humor" or "tough love" in their instructions during priesthood session, I think that is compatible with a Zion culture, or at least compatible with how most men communicate. For example, I remember Elder Packer saying something about a doctor telling a young man he doesn't have an inferiority complex, he is inferior. But he went on to explain the doctrine after getting people's attention.

I guess I'm teasing out the cultural aspect of teaching men with non-nurturing methods from the cultural aspect of treating men badly, and then assessing how the teaching results in the treatment. This would show whether LDS leadership is contributing to the problem, which I think you might be suggesting, or at least what I'm seeing in the OP.

Edited December 31, 2011 by CV75